Part 2: Imami Narrations

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Part 2: Imami Narrations

 

The claim of the existence of evidence proving the rib-breaking story is not limited to the narrations of the Sunnis. Rather, we found the supporters of this myth taking this same approach in the narrations of the Imamiyyah. It has been mentioned that most of the narrations that Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili gathered in his book Ma’sat al Zahra’ do not indicate to the claim of the occurrence of the rib-breaking incident. This type of narrations reached 21 out of the 40 narrations of Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili. We have given examples of this strange and contrived approach that Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili took, which makes it unnecessary to follow up on all his evidence. However, we decided to single out some of the narrations that he used as evidence for study and criticism, especially since we find many opponents following him in using them as evidence.

 

Narration 1: The narration describing Fatimah as a truthful martyr

The supporters of the rib-breaking myth use as evidence a narration mentioned in al Kafi^[1] from Musa ibn Jafar, nicknamed al Kazim, who said that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha is a truthful martyr and that the daughters of the prophets do not menstruate.^[2]

This narration is one of the most important narrations that opponents use as evidence, but it does not prove the rib-breaking story in any way, in addition to the fact that we deny the authenticity of the narration in terms of the text and we deny its indication to the topic of dispute. The explanation of this is from a few aspects:

 

The first aspect

The text of the narration includes something that cannot be believed, as the claim that the daughters of the prophets, including Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, do not menstruate is an unreasonable and unproven claim. All the narrations that have been mentioned on this topic in the books of the Imamiyyah, with the exception of this narration, are unproven narrations in terms of isnad.^[3] Marja’ Muhammad Asif Muhsini said about the narrations in which menstruation was denied for Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha:

 

ليست في الباب رواية معتبرة تثبت ذلك سوى رواية واحدة وفي رواية علي عن أخيه الكاظم بسند معتبر إن فاطمة صديقة شهيدة وإن بنات الأنبياء لا يطمثن وسائر الروايات تؤكدها ولكن مع ذلك أقول والله العالم

There is no reliable narration in this chapter that proves this except for one narration. It appears in the narration of ‘Ali from his brother al Kazim with a reliable isnad, “Fatimah is a truthful martyr. The daughters of the prophets do not menstruate.” All the narrations confirm it but despite that I say: And Allah knows best!^[4]

 

Muhammad al Hussaini said, commenting on the narrations that Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili used as evidence to deny menstruation for Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha:

 

ونلاحظ على هذه الروايات أنها من الضعيف والمرسل والمضطرب

We note that these narrations are weak, mursal, and confused.^[5]

 

The second aspect

This narration that denies menstruation for Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha is opposed by two authentic narrations according to the standards of the Imamiyyah that prove that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha menstruates like all other women. Al Kulayni and al Tusi narrated with an isnad that is authentic according to them^[6] from Zurarah who said:

 

سألت أبا جعفر عليه السلام عن قضاء الحائض الصلاة ثم تقضي الصوم قال ليس عليها أن تقضي الصلاة وعليها أن تقضي صوم شهر رمضان (ثم أقبل عليَّ وقال) إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يأمر بذلك فاطمة عليها السلام وكانت تأمر بذلك المؤمنات

I asked Abu Jafar ‘alayh al Salam about a menstruating woman making up the prayer and then making up the fast.

He said, “She does not have to make up the prayer, but she has to make up the fast of the month of Ramadan.”

He then turned to me and said, “The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam used to order Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha to do that and she used to order the believing women to do that.”^[7]

 

Al Kulayni and al Tusi narrated with an isnad that is authentic in their view^[8] from ‘Ali ibn Mahzayar, who said:

 

كتبت إليه عليه السلام إمرأة طهرت من حيضها أو من دم نفاسها في أول يوم من شهر رمضان ثم استحاضت فصلت و صامت شهر رمضان كله من غير أن تعمل ما تعمل المستحاضة من الغسل لكل صلاتين فهل يجوز صومها و صلاتها أم لا فكتب عليه السلام تقضي صومها ولا تقضي صلاتها إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يأمر فاطمة صلوات الله عليها والمؤمنات من نسائه بذلك

I wrote to him ‘alayh al Salam, “A woman became pure from her menstruation or from her postpartum bleeding on the first day of the month of Ramadan, then she had istihadah (abnormal uterine bleeding), so she prayed and fasted the entire month of Ramadan without doing what a woman with istihadah does of washing for every two prayers. Is her fasting and prayer permissible or not?”

He ‘alayh al Salam wrote, “She should make up her fasting but not her prayer, for the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam used to command Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and the believing women among his wives to do that.”^[9]

 

Because the explicit meaning of this narration is that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha menstruates like all other women, the Imami scholars have tried to reconcile this narration with the narrations that deny menstruation for Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha in many ways, all of which are based on affectation and uncertainty, and this is not the place to discuss their answers.^[10] The point is that the narration the opponents use as evidence is opposed in the claim of denying menstruation for Fatimah by a narration that is equal to it in the degree of authenticity, in addition to being closer to reason and logic than the narration that claims that the daughters of the prophets, including Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, do not menstruate.

 

The third aspect

If we ignore the problems in the narration and accept for argument’s sake its authenticity according to the Imamiyyah, then we deny its indication to the point of dispute between us and them for two reasons:

The first matter: The description of Fatimah as a martyr could mean two things:

i. What is meant by shahadah is that Fatimah died as a martyr. This is far-fetched and the context of the narration does not support it, especially since the status of shahadah here is linked to the status of truthfulness and linking shahadah to the status of truthfulness is evidence that what is meant by shahadah is not genuine martyrdom. If for argument’s sake we accept that what is meant is that Fatimah died as a martyr, then how can the Imamiyyah say that the reason for Fatimah’s martyrdom is the rib-breaking incident? The narration is silent about that. So, claiming that the reason for Fatimah being a martyr is the rib-breaking story is arbitrary and fabricated and there is no evidence for it.

ii. What is meant is the status of testimony i.e. the testimony over creation. So, the intended meaning of the narration is to single out Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha with the virtue of testimony over creation on the Day of Resurrection. The evidence for this is that the description of Fatimah with shahadah in this narration came coupled with her description as a truthful woman, so the meaning is that she has two statuses: the status of the truthful ones because she is the queen of the women of the worlds and the status of testimony over creation; and this is correct in the meaning of the narration. This interpretation has evidence from the Qur’an, as Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala linked the description of the truthful ones and the witnesses in the Qur’an, without meaning that the witnesses in the verse are those who were martyred in the way of Allah, but rather the righteous believers are meant, as Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:

 

ﭑ ﭒ ﭓ ﭔ ﭕ ﭖ ﭗ ﭙ ﭚ ﭛ ﭜ ﭝ ﭞ ﭠ ﭡ ﭢ ﭣ ﭤ ﭥ ﭦ

And those who have believed in Allah and His messengers, they are the supporters of truth, and the martyrs, with their Lord; they will have their reward and their light. But those who have disbelieved and denied Our verses, those are the companions of Hellfire.^[11]

 

This rank is established for the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his Companions in particular and his Ummah in general as appears in Allah’s words:

ﭪ ﭫ ﭬ ﭭ ﭮ ﭯ ﭰ ﭱ ﭲ ﭳ ﭴ ﭵ

And thus We have made you a median [i.e., just] community that you will be witnesses over the people and the Messenger will be a witness over you.^[12]

 

There is no doubt that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha is a witness in this sense. This is what Marja’ Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah leaned towards and decided.^[13]

It has been mentioned in many narrations from the Imams of the Household of the Prophet in the books of the Imamah that the term martyrdom is applied to those who did not die as martyrs. Among them is what al Kulayni narrated in al Kafi with a reliable isnad on the scales of the Imamiyyah^[14] on the authority of Jafar al Sadiq, who said:

 

إن الميت منكم على هذا الأمر شهيد قال قلت و إن مات على فراشه قال إي والله وإن مات على فراشه حي عند ربه يرزق

“The one who dies among you is a martyr for this matter.”

I said, “And if he dies in his bed?”

He said, “Yes, by Allah, even if he dies in his bed; he is alive with his Lord and provided for.”^[15]

 

Al Barqi narrated on the authority of Minhal al Qassab who said:

 

قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام ادع الله لي بالشهادة فقال المؤمن لشهيد حيث مات أو ما سمعت قول الله في كتابه ﭑ ﭒ ﭓ ﭔ ﭕ ﭖ ﭗ ﭙ ﭚ ﭛ

I said to Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam, “Pray to Allah for me for martyrdom,” to which he said, “The believer is a martyr wherever he dies, or have you not heard the saying of Allah in His Book: And those who have believed in Allah and His messengers, they are the supporters of truth. And the martyrs with their Lord.^[16]

 

On the authority of Malik al Juhani who said: Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam said to me:

 

يا مالك إن الميت منكم على هذا الأمر شهيد بمنزلة الضارب في سبيل الله

O Malik, the one who dies among you on this matter is a martyr in the same position as the one who strikes in the way of Allah.

 

Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam said:

 

ما يضر رجلًا من شيعتنا أية ميتة مات أكله السبع أو أحرق بالنار أو غرق أو قتل هو والله شهيد

It does not harm a man from our Shia what death he dies, whether he is eaten by a wild animal or burned by fire or drowned or killed; he is, by Allah, a martyr.^[17]

 

This is not all. It came in the Imami narrations that the description of the martyred friend is given to the one who did not die martyred in the way of Allah. Ibn Babawayh al Qummi narrated on the authority of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu that he said:

 

الميت من شيعتنا صديق شهيد صدق بأمرنا وأحب فينا وأبغض فينا يريد بذلك الله عز وجل مؤمن بالله وبرسوله قال الله عز وجل ﭑ ﭒ ﭓ ﭔ ﭕ ﭖ ﭗ ﭙ ﭚ ﭛ ﭜ ﭝ ﭞ

The one who dies among our Shia is a martyred friend, he believed in our matter and loved for us and hated for us, meaning by that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, a believer in Allah and His Messenger. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala said, “And those who have believed in Allah and His messengers, they are the supporters of truth. And the martyrs with their Lord, will have their reward and their light.”^[18]

 

It was also narrated from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu that he said:

 

المؤمن على أي الحالات مات في أي يوم وساعة قبض فهو صديق شهيد

The believer, regardless of the circumstances, dies on any day and at any time he is taken, he is a martyr friend.^[19]

 

Al Barqi narrated from al Hussain ibn ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhuma that he said:

 

ما من شيعتنا إلا صديق شهيد قال قلت جعلت فداك أنى يكون ذلك وعامتهم يموتون على فراشهم فقال أما تتلو كتاب الله في الحديد ﭑ ﭒ ﭓ ﭔ ﭕ ﭖ ﭗ ﭙ ﭚ ﭛ

“There is no one from our Shia who is not a martyr friend.”

I said, “May I be your ransom, how can that be when most of them die in their beds?”

He said, “Do you not recite the Book of Allah in al Hadid, ‘And those who have believed in Allah and His messengers, they are the supporters of truth. And the martyrs.’”^[20]

 

It becomes clear that the use of the word martyr in the Imami narrations is not limited to those who died as martyrs; the result is that this narration should not be used as evidence to prove the rib-breaking story, so there is no authority in this narration on the subject of the dispute between us and the opponents.

 

Narration 2: The narration of Fatimah slapping her cheek.

Some of them^[21] used as evidence what was narrated by al Saduq in his al Amali who said: Muhammad ibn al Hassan ibn Ahmed ibn al Walid told us — Ahmed ibn Idris and Muhammad ibn Yahya al ‘Attar told us, all of them — from Muhammad ibn Ahmed ibn Yahya ibn ‘Imran al Ash’ari who said — Abu ‘Abdullah al Razi told us — from al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah — from Saif ibn ‘Umairah — from Muhammad ibn ‘Utbah — from Muhammad ibn ‘Abdur Rahman — from his father — from ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu who said:

 

بينا أنا وفاطمة والحسن والحسين عند رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا التفت إلينا فبكى فقلت ما يبكيك يا رسول الله فقال أبكي مما يصنع بكم بعدي فقلت وما ذاك يا رسول الله قال أبكي من ضربتك على القرن ولطمِ فاطمة خدَّها

While I, Fatimah, al Hassan, and al Hussain were with the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, he turned to us and cried, so I said, “What makes you cry, O Messenger of Allah?”

He said, “I am crying because of what will be done to you after me.”

I said, “What is that, O Messenger of Allah?”

He said, “I am crying because of you being struck on the temple and Fatimah slapping her cheek…”^[22]

 

Hashim al Hashimi included this narration among the sources that stated that the people beat al Zahra’ radiya Llahu ‘anha either by hand or whip.^[23]

The answer to this narration from the side of the text and the isnad:

As for the isnad: The narration is invalid, because it includes a group of weak and unknown narrators. Here is the explanation:

Abu ‘Abdullah al Razi Muhammad ibn Ahmed al Jamurani^[24]

• The scholars of Rijal agreed on his weakness.
• Al Majlisi said, “Abu ‘Abdullah is the weakened al Jamurani.”^[25]
• Hussain al Sa’idi said, “Weak; Ibn al Walid, Ibn Nuh, al Saduq, and Ibn al Ghada’iri declared him weak. Al ‘Allamah, Ibn Dawood, al Jaza’iri^[26], and Muhammad Taha Najaf considered him weak. There is weakness and confusion in his narrations and fabrication is apparent from some of them.”^[27]
• Al Khu’i^[28], al Mamaqani^[29], Muhammad ibn al Hassan al Shahid al Thani^[30], Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri^[31], Jawwad al Tabrizi^[32], and Kazim al Ha’iri^[33] declared him weak.
• Muhammad al Shahrudi said, “They did not mention him.”^[34]
• The bottom line is that the Imami scholars agreed on his weakness, as al Tustari stated when he declared, “His weakness is agreed upon.”^[35]

 

Al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah al Bata’ini

• He is criticised. We have already discussed him.^[36]

 

Muhammad Taqi al Majlisi (the first) disagreed with this and ruled in his book Rawdat al Muttaqin that the isnad in which al Jamurani appears reported on the authority of al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah^[37] is strong.

Al Khawaju’i corrected him saying: “And the isnad, as you see, is extremely weak.”

He added:

 

ومن الغريب أن الشارح المجلسي قدس سره عدّ هذا السند في شرحه على الفقيه قويًا ولا يعرف له وجه فإن القوي في اصطلاح القوم يطلق على الموثق لقوة الظن بجانبه بسبب توثيق راويه وإن كان مخالفًا وقد يطلق على مروي الإمامي الغير الممدوح ولا المذموم كذا في الدراية وشرحها للشهيد الثاني وقد عُلِم أن الحسن بن علي مع أنه واقف كذاب ملعون أضعف من أبيه وقد ورد فيه ما فيه ومثله أبو عبد الله الجاموراني ضعفه القمِّيُّون حيث لم يعتبروا مروياته في كتاب نوادر الحكمة فإذا كان هذا شأن الراوي فكيف يعتمد على روايته ونقله في إثبات حكم شرعي فلعله كان كاذبًا في روايته عن عبد الله بن وضاح الثقة

It is strange that the commentator al Majlisi, may Allah sanctify his status, considered this isnad strong in his commentary on al Faqih; no reason is known for it. In the terminology of the experts, strong is applied to the trustworthy due to the strong suspicion on his part due to the trustworthiness of its narrator, even if he is a dissenter. It may also be applied to the narration of the Imami^[38] who is not praised or blamed, as stated in al Dirayah and its commentary by al Shahid al Thani. It is known that al Hassan ibn ‘Ali is a Waqif, liar, accursed, and weaker than his father. What was mentioned about him was mentioned. The same applies to Abu ‘Abdullah al Jamurani, who was weakened by the Qummis, as they did not consider his narrations in the book Nawadir al Hikmah. If this is the case with the narrator, then how can his narration and transmission be relied upon to prove a legal ruling? Perhaps he was a liar in his narration from the trustworthy ‘Abdullah ibn Waddah.^[39]

 

Muhammad ibn ‘Utbah

• He is counted among the class of students of al Sadiq.
• Al Khu’i mentioned that he is shared among several unknowns, viz: Muhammad ibn ‘Utbah al Fazari^[40], Muhammad ibn ‘Utbah al Zaghbali or al Zughayli, and Muhammad ibn ‘Utbah al Sarraj.^[41]
• It is not possible that Muhammad ibn ‘Utbah is Abu Hudhayfah ibn Rabi’ah, because he is from an older class, as he was mentioned among the companions of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.^[42]

 

Muhammad ibn ‘Abdur Rahman: He narrates from his father, and it is possible that he is one of two.^[43]

The first possibility: He is Muhammad ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf, and thus his father is ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf; and this is more likely to be correct. Here is their status according to the scholars of the Imamiyyah.

 

Muhammad ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf

• Unknown.^[44]

His father, ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf, the great Companion of the Sunnis, was judged weak by a group of Imami scholars of Rijal.

 

‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf

• Al Mamaqani said, “He is one of the weakest of the weak.”^[45]
• Muhammad al Shahrudi said, “He is blameworthy and cursed, from the men of the cursed document they wrote and pledged to usurp the divine Caliphate. He is one of those who intended to kill the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam on the night of al ‘Aqabah. A list of his blameworthiness is in Safinat al Bihar.”^[46]
• ‘Ali al Karaki said, “He is one of the leaders of the hypocrites, their flags and their pillars.”^[47]

 

The second possibility: He is Muhammad ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Layla al Qadi al Ansari, and thus his father is ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Layla. Here is the opinion of the Imami scholars about him and his father.

 

Muhammad ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Layla

• The scholars of Rijal differed about him; some of the Imami scholars praised him^[48] while a group considered him blameworthy, which is correct according to their rules.
• Muhammad ibn Ismail al Mazandarani said in his al Rijal in response to those who praised him, “And all of that is strange and odd, for the man’s nasb is more famous than the disbelief of Iblis and he is one of the infamous deviants. He must be mentioned among the weak as the virtuous ‘Abdul Nabi al Jaza’iri did.”^[49]
• Mulla ‘Ali al ‘Alyari^[50] agreed with him in this opinion.
• Al Khu’i mentioned that the narrations are consistent in blaming him. He then said summarising the statements about him, “There is no doubt that the man is one of the deviants from the Ahlul Bayt.”^[51]
• Muhammad Taha Najaf^[52], al Mamaqani^[53], Ibrahim al Dunbuli^[54], ‘Abdul Nabi al Jaza’iri^[55], and Muhsin al A’raji denied Ibn Dawood’s praise of him and considered it an exaggeration.^[56]
• Mirza Muhammad al Astarabadi denied Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli’s inclusion of him in the first section, saying, “There is no reason to mention him here with his infamousness.”^[57]
• Ibrahim al Shabbut declared him weak and responded to Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli’s praise for him^[58]

 

‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Layla al Ansari

• Al Mamaqani said about him, “Muhmal.”^[59]
• Al Khu’i considered him unknown.^[60]
• Muhsin al Amin went to the view that he has no share in documentation.^[61]

 

Therefore, Asif Muhsini ruled that the narration is not valid in his book Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar.^[62]

Muhammad al Hussaini said about this narration, “In its isnad is Abu ‘Abdullah al Razi who is weak, al Hassan ibn ‘Ali is weak, and Muhammad ibn ‘Abdur Rahman is both neglected and unknown.”^[63]

As for the text: This narration does not indicate that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha was slapped at all. Citing this narration as evidence for that is one of the strangest arguments. The wording of the narration is, “And Fatimah slapped her cheek.” This means that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha is the one who slapped her cheek and this is the clear wording of the narration. As for the reason for Fatimah slapping her cheek, it is not clear in the narration. If what is meant is that she did that on the day of the Prophet’s death, then we absolve Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha of that, because the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam forbade slapping the cheeks and tearing the garments. We cannot imagine that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha was anything but one of the patient believers, not one of those who slap their faces.

The first person we came across who cited this narration as evidence to prove the rib-breaking incident is Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili, because he follows an approach based on exaggeration in gathering narrations without contemplating their implications. It appears that when he saw the phrase, “And Fatimah slapped her cheek,” the rib-breaking story came to mind whereas this is far-fetched, as we have explained. Al Majlisi, despite his extensive collection, mentioned many narrations in the chapter on the broken rib, but he did not mention this narration among them. When this is clear, then it is surprising that the opponents were unaware of this and followed Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili in citing this narration as evidence. We do not know how they interpreted this narration in a way other than the meaning of its explicit words.

 

Narration 3: The narration of al Rida’s supplication and his accusation of the two Sheikhs of killing the son of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam

Some of them cite as evidence a narration mentioned in the book Muhaj al Da’wat by Ibn Tawus, which states:

 

دعاء آخر لمولانا الرضا في سجدة الشكر رويناه بإسنادنا إلى سعد بن عبد الله في كتاب فضل الدعاء وقال أبو جعفر عن محمد بن إسماعيل بن بزيع عن الرضا وبكير بن صالح عن سليمان بن جعفر عن الرضا قالا دخلنا عليه وهو ساجد في سجدة الشكر فأطال في سجوده ثم رفع رأسه فقلنا له أطلت السجود فقال من دعا في سجدة الشكر بهذا الدعاء كان كالرامي مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يوم بدر قالا قلنا فنكتبه قال اكتبا إذا أنتما سجدتما سجدة الشكر فتقولا اللهم العن اللذين بدّلا دينك وغيّرا نعمتك واتّهما رسولك صلى الله عليه وسلم وخالفا ملّتك وصدّا عن سبيلك وكفرّا آلاءك وردَّا عليك كلامك واستهزءا برسولك وقتلا ابن نبيك وحرّفا كتابك وجحدا آياتك وسخرا بآياتك واستكبرا عن عبادتك وقتلا أولياءك

Another supplication of our master al Rida in the prostration of gratitude, we narrated it with our isnad to Sa’d ibn ‘Abdullah in the book Fadl al Du’a’. Abu Jafar said: On the authority of Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Buzay’ — from al Rida and Bukayr ibn Salih — from Sulaiman ibn Jafar — from al Rida, they said, “We entered upon him while he was prostrating in the prostration of gratitude; he prolonged his prostration before raising his head. We told him, ‘You prolonged the prostration.’

He said, ‘Whoever supplicates in the prostration of gratitude with this supplication will be like the archer with the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam on the Day of Badr.’

We said, ‘So, we will write it.’

He instructed, ‘Write. When you prostrate in the prostration of gratitude, then say: O Allah, curse those who changed Your religion, altered Your favour, accused Your Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, opposed Your religion, turned people away from Your path, denied Your favours, rejected Your words, mocked Your Messenger, killed the son of Your Prophet, distorted Your Book, denied Your verses, ridiculed Your verses, were arrogant about Your worship, and killed Your friends.’”^[64]

 

Analysis:

This narration does not indicate in any way to the rib-breaking incident.

As for those who clung to this narration from the opponents, they claimed that the evidence in the report is the phrase, “they killed the son of Your Prophet,” so they attributed it to Muhsin ibn ‘Ali. The truth is that what is meant by the son of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam here is al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu as is clear. As for those who said that what is meant by it is Muhsin, they have overlooked the prevailing language in the supplications and ziyarat (visitations) that the Imamiyyah transmit from the Ahlul Bayt, in which the phrase the son of Your Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is repeatedly used for al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu. As for applying this to Muhsin, we did not find any evidence for it. To clarify this, we will illustrate this matter with several narrations:

 

• It was mentioned in Kamil al Ziyarat by Ibn Quluwayh within the narration of visiting the grave of al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

 

يا رب هذا عبدك وقد وافى قبر ابن نبيك

O Lord, this is your servant who has come to the grave of the son of Your Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.^[65]

 

• It was mentioned in Misbah al Mutahajjid by al Tusi in the farewell of those who were killed with al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu at Karbala’:

 

وأشركني معهم في صالح ما أعطيتهم على نصرتهم ابن نبيك … ولا تجعلني أخْيبَ وفْدِك وزوار ابن نبيك… قبل أن تنأى عن ابن نبيك داري

And include me with them in the good that you gave them for their support of the son of Your Prophet…. And do not make me the most disappointed of your delegation and the visitors of the son of Your Prophet… before you distance my lodging from the son of Your Prophet.^[66]

 

• Al Misbah in the visitation of al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu on the day of ‘Ashura’ has:

 

وأهلكْ من جعل يوم قتل ابن نبيك وخيرتك عيدًا

And your family, who made the day of the killing of the son of Your Prophet and your best a holiday.^[67]

 

• It was mentioned in al Mazar by al Mashhadi in the visitation of al Hussain:

 

إذْ جعلتَ لي السبيل إلى زيارة ابن نبيك

When you made for me the way to visit the son of Your Prophet.^[68]

 

And other numerous narrations that confirm that the use of the phrase the son of Your Prophet or even the son of the daughter of Your Prophet is usually directed to al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

If it is said, “The evidence in this narration that what is meant is Muhsin and not al Hussain is that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar did not carry out the killing of al Hussain, so the speech is directed to their killing of Muhsin when they aborted him as a foetus and broke Fatimah’s rib.”

 

The answer is from a few angles.

1. It was mentioned in the books of the Imamiyyah that the reason for the killing of al Hussain was what happened at the Saqifah. It was mentioned in al Kafi by al Kulayni on the authority of Abu ‘Abdullah regarding the Almighty’s saying:

ﭝ ﭞ ﭟ ﭠ ﭡ ﭢ ﭣ ﭤ ﭥ ﭦ ﭧ ﭨ ﭩ

There are not three in a private conversation but that He is the fourth of them nor are there five but that He is the sixth of them.^[69]

 

Jafar al Sadiq said:

 

نزلت هذه الآية في فلان وفلان وأبي عبيدة الجراح و عبد الرحمن بن عوف وسالم مولى أبي حذيفة والمغيرة بن شعبة حيث كتبوا الكتاب بينهم وتعاهدوا وتوافقوا لئن مضى محمد لا تكون الخلافة في بني هاشم ولا النبوة أبدًا قال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام لعلك ترى أنه كان يوم يشبه يوم كتب الكتاب إلا يوم قتل الحسين عليه السلام وهكذا كان في سابق علم الله عز وجل الذي أعلمه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن إذا كُتب الكتاب قُتل الحسين وخرج الملك من بني هاشم فقد كان ذلك كله

This verse was revealed about so-and-so, so-and-so, Abu ‘Ubaidah al Jarrah, ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf, Salim the slave of Abu Hudhayfah, and al Mughirah ibn Shu’bah, when they wrote the book among themselves and pledged and agreed, “If Muhammad passes away, neither the Caliphate nor prophethood will be in the Banu Hashim.”

Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam said, “Perhaps you see that it was a day similar to the day the book was written except for the day al Hussain ‘alayh al Salam was killed. Thus, it was in the foreknowledge of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam informed him that if the book was written, al Hussain would be killed and the kingdom would come out of the Banu Hashim; and all that transpired.”^[70]

 

This narration is explicit that the reason for killing al Hussain was what Abu Bakr and ‘Umar allegedly did in usurping the Caliphate from the family of the Prophet, which is the saying of Jafar al Sadiq:

 

أن إذا كُتب الكتاب قُتل الحسين

If the book is written, al Hussain will be killed.

 

Al Majlisi confirms in Bihar al Anwar that the reason for killing al Hussain was the coup of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and they are the main reason for killing al Hussain:

 

ولنعم ما قيل ما قُتل الحسين إلا في يوم السقيفة

How good is what was said, “Al Hussain was not killed except on the day of Saqifah.”^[71]

 

Sheikh Abu al Fadl Sultan Muhammadi said:

 

كان العلامة الوحيد البهبهاني يرى أنّ شهادة الإمام الحسين عليه السلام هي أثر من آثار غصب خلافة الأئمّة عليهم السلام وينسب مضمون المقولة المذكورة في الأعلى إلى الأئمّة فيقول كان الأئمّة عليهم السلام يقولون دائمًا ما قتل الحسين إلّا يوم السَّقِيفة

The scholar al Wahid al Bahbahani believed that the martyrdom of Imam al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu was a result of the usurpation of the Caliphate of the Imams ‘alayhim al Salam. He attributed the content of the above-mentioned statement to the Imams, saying: The Imams ‘alayhim al Salam always used to say, “al Hussain was not killed except on the day of Saqifah.”^[72]

 

2. It was reported from al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the books of the Imamiyyah that he accused Abu Bakr and ‘Umar of killing him. It was reported in Bihar al Anwar that al Hussain wiped the blood before his death and declared:

 

هكذا أكون حتى ألقى جدي رسول الله وأنا مخضوب بدمي وأقول يا رسول الله قتلني فلان وفلان

This is how I will be until I meet my grandfather, the Messenger of Allah, and I am covered in my blood and I say, “O Messenger of Allah, so-and-so and so-and-so killed me.”^[73]

 

Accordingly, what is meant by his saying, “And they killed the son of Your Prophet,” is accusing Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma of causing the killing of al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

A group of Imami scholars considered al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu the purport in this narration. When Marja’ Muhammad Sadiq al Ruhani was asked:

 

ذكر السيد ابن طاووس طيب الله ثراه في كتابه مهج الدعوات رواية طويلة مما جاء فيها اللهم العن اللذين بدّلا دينك وغيّرا نعمتك واتّهما رسولك صلى الله عليه وسلم وخالفا ملّتك وصدّا عن سبيلك وكفرّا آلاءك وردَّا عليك كلامك واستهزءا برسولك وقتلا ابن نبيك وحرّفا كتابك وجحدا آياتك وسخرا بآياتك واستكبرا عن عبادتك وقتلا أولياءك ويظهر أن المراد بهما الأول والثاني لكن قتلهما ابن نبيك هنا إشكال كيف يُتهمان في مقتل الإمام الحسين سلام الله عليه وهما لم يدركا الحادثة ما هو السر في ذلك ودمتم سالمين

Sayed Ibn Tawus, may Allah sanctify his soul, mentioned in his book Muhaj al Da’wat a long narration that included, “O Allah, curse those who changed Your religion, altered Your blessings, accused Your Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, opposed Your religion, turned people away from Your path, disbelieved in Your favours, rejected Your words, mocked Your Messenger, killed the son of Your Prophet, distorted Your book, denied Your verses, ridiculed Your verses, were arrogant about Your worship, and killed Your friends.” It appears that what is meant by them is the first and second. However, their killing of the son of Your Prophet here is a problem. How can they be accused of killing Imam al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu when they did not witness the incident? What is the secret behind that? And may you remain safe.

 

He replied saying:

 

السبب الأصلي والأساس لقتل سيد الشهداء ما تحقق بعد رحلة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم و ورود المصائب المهلكة على سيدة نساء العالمين سلام الله عليها

The primary and foundational reason for killing the Master of Martyrs is what happened after the passing of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the fatal calamities that befell the Queen of the Women of the Worlds radiya Llahu ‘anha.

 

This is a picture of al Ruhani’s verdict:

 

The Fatwa Committee of the office of Marja’ Muhammad Fadil al Lankarani answered the same question as follows:

 

لم يكونا مباشرين في الحادثة والمراد تسببهما في ما وقع من الأحداث ومنها وقعة عاشوراء ولذا ورد عن زينب بنت علي عليهما السلام أنها قالت يوم عاشوراء رأت نهب الخيام بأبي وأمي من صار خيامه يوم الاثنين نهبًا والمراد بيوم الإثنين يوم السقيفة

They were not directly involved in the incident. What is meant is that they caused the events that occurred, including the incident of ‘Ashura’. Therefore, it was reported from Zainab bint ‘Ali ‘alayhima al Salam that she said on the day of ‘Ashura’ that she saw the tents being looted. May my father and mother be sacrificed for whoever’s tents were looted on Monday. What is meant by Monday is the day of Saqifah.^[74]

 

This is a copy of the verdict of the office of Marja’ al Lankarani:

The office of Marja’ Nasir Makarim Shirazi answered this question as follows:

 

إن ما جرى يوم السقيفة كان سببًا لما جرى في كربلاء لأنّ معاوية كان واليا من قبل الثاني على الشام وبعد معاوية تصدى ابنه يزيد بخلافته هذا ولكن الرواية مرسلة

What happened on the day of Saqifah was the reason for what happened at Karbala’, because Muawiyah was the governor of the second over Greater Syria, and after Muawiyah, his son Yazid assumed his Caliphate. However, the narration is disconnected.^[75]

 

This is a copy of the verdict of the office of Marja’ Nasir Makarim Shirazi:

And the professor in the Qom Seminary, Ahmed al Mahdi, answered the same question, saying:

 

بسمه تعالی المراد هما الأساس لذلك

In His name: The two are the basis for that.^[76]

 

These are the statements of the great Imami authorities and scholars that determine that the intended meaning in the narration is al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu, which is consistent with the words of the aforementioned visitations and what they narrated from al Hussain himself, i.e. the reason for his killing was the first and second Khalifas, which confirms that the narration of Ibn Tawus in Muhaj al Da’wat is not included in what we are discussing and has no relation to the issue of the rib-breaking of Fatimah al Zahra’ and Muhsin.

Observation: Whoever uses this narration as evidence has caused himself to fall into a dangerous situation and a slippery slope. He wanted to attack Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, so he used a narration whose apparent meaning or rather explicit meaning indicates that the Qur’an has been distorted. It came in the narration attributed to Imam al Rida from the two Sheikhs—and he is innocent of it, “And they distorted Your book.”

Al Nuri al Tabarsi in his book Fasl al Khitab fi Ithbat Tahrif Kitab Rabb al Arbab used this narration as evidence to prove his claim of the distortion of the Qur’an, Allah forbid. He said:

 

الدليل الحادي عشر الأخبار الكثيرة المعتبرة الصريحة في وقوع السقط ودخول النقص في الموجود من القرآن زيادة على ما مرّ متفرقًا ضمن الأدلة السابقة وأنه أقل من تمام ما نزل إعجازًا على قلب سيد الإنس والجان من غير اختصاص بآية أو سورة وهي متفرقة في الكتب المعتبرة التي عليها المعول وإليها المرجع عند الأصحاب جمعت ما عثرت عليها في هذا الباب بعون الملك الوهاب

The eleventh proof: The many reliable and explicit narrations about the occurrence of omission and the entry of deficiency into the existing Qur’an, in addition to what was mentioned scattered within the previous proofs and that it is less than the entirety of what was revealed as a miracle to the heart of the Master of mankind and jinn, without being specific to a verse or chapter; they are scattered in the reliable books that are relied upon and referred to by the companions, I collected what I found in this chapter with the help of the Generous King.^[77]

 

Then al Nuri al Tabarsi presented his evidence, including this narration^[78], because it clearly indicates that the Qur’an was subject to distortion according to his claim.^[79]

The ruling of the Imami scholars on the narration: We conclude by saying that Muhammad Asif Muhsini ruled that the narration is not valid in Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar; he did not mention it among the valid narrations^[80] and Marja’ Makarim Shirazi ruled that the narration is mursal, as we have seen.^[81]

 

Narration 4: The narration of Jawwad’s determination to take Abu Bakr and ‘Umar out of their graves and burn them in revenge for Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha.

Some opponents cited a narration in Dala’il al Imamah to prove the rib-breaking incident.^[82] The author of Dala’il al Imamah said:

 

أخبرني أبو الحسين محمد بن هارون بن موسى قال حدثنا أبي قال أخبرني أبو جعفر محمد بن الحسن بن أحمد بن الوليد قال حدثنا محمد بن أحمد بن أبي عبد الله البرقي قال حدثني زكريا بن آدم قال إني لعند الرضا عليه السلام إذ جيء بأبي جعفر عليه السلام وسنه أقل من أربع سنين فضرب بيده إلى الأرض ورفع رأسه إلى السماء فأطال الفكر فقال له الرضا عليه السلام بنفسي أنت لم طال فكرك فقال عليه السلام فيما صنع بأمي فاطمة عليه السلام أما والله لأخرجنهما ثم لأحرقنهما ثم لأذرينهما ثم لأنسفنهما في اليم نسفًا فاسْتدْنَاه وقبَّل ما بين عينيه ثم قال بأبي أنت وأمي أنت لها يعني الإمامة

Abu al Hussain Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa told me saying — my father told us saying — Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn al Hassan ibn Ahmed ibn al Walid told me saying — Muhammad ibn Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi told us saying — Zakariyya ibn Adam told me saying: I was with al Rida ‘alayh al Salam when Abu Jafar [al Jawwad] ‘alayh al Salam was brought—he was less than four years old. He struck the ground with his hand, raised his head to the sky, and thought for a long time. Al Rida ‘alayh al Salam said to him, “May I be sacrificed for you, why did you ponder for a long time?”

He ‘alayh al Salam said, “About what was done to my mother Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha. By Allah, I will take them out, then I will burn them, then I will scatter them, then I will blow them into the sea.”

So, he brought him close, kissed him between his eyes, and said, “May my father and mother be sacrificed for you. You are for it,” meaning the Imamah.^[83]

 

Although this narration is not explicit on the subject of the dispute because it does not include any wording that refers to the issue of attacking or assaulting al Zahra’ and breaking her rib^[84], we will discuss it in detail in terms of isnad and text to prevent the opponents from using it as evidence:

As for the isnad: We have discussed the book Dala’il al Imamah in detail and we have shown that its author is unknown and that its circulated copy is not reliable. As for the isnad by which this news was narrated, it has several defects:

• Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa al Tal’akbari: (unknown) according to al Khu’i’s principles.^[85]
• Muhammad ibn Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah al Barqi: He has no biography in the books of the Imamiyyah according to our research and with the effort made. This name is recorded in the two manuscripts of Dala’il al Imamah^[86] and all of its editions that we have come across^[87] as well as in the handwritten copies of Nawadir al Mu’jizat^[88] and all its editions.^[89] Many Imami scholars transmitted this report from al Tabari with the same isnad.^[90] Based on what was mentioned above, the man is unknown.

 

NEXT⇒ Corrections

---

^[1]  Ma’sat al Zahra’, 1/100; Khalfiyyat Kitab Ma’sat al Zahra’, 2/71; al Hujum ‘ala Bayt Fatimah, pg. 235; Hiwar ma’a Fadl Allah Hawl al Zahra’, pg. 101.

^[2]  Al Kafi, 1/458.

^[3]  Hashim al Hashimi lists in his book Hiwar ma’a Fadl Allah Hawl al Zahra’, pg. 100-105, seven narrations that were reported in denying menstruation for Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha. He weakened the isnad of five narrations and ruled the authenticity of the isnad of two narrations, one of which is the narration of al Kafi that we are about to discuss and the second does not indicate at all the denial of menstruation, as its text is, “On the authority of Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam who said, ‘There was purity between al Hassan and al Hussain and there were six months and ten days between them in birth.’” Hashim al Hashimi tried to claim that this narration indicates the denial of menstruation for Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha using very far-fetched and outrageous arguments. Indeed, if we said that this narration is evidence of the occurrence of menstruation because the principle is that purity does not occur except after menstruation or postpartum bleeding, it would be closer to reason. ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al Qummi mentioned in his al Tafsir, 2/297, that there was one purity between al Hassan and al Hussain. Then Hashim al Hashimi tried to correct a third narration using the method of evidence and although he admitted the weakness of its isnad being attributed to Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, he authenticated it on the grounds that there are corroborating evidences for it; and this is one of the strange things, as the narration of Ibn Babawayh has no isnad at all. As for the issue of corroboration by evidence, it occurs when weakness in the isnad is possible and this is the case with the Sunnis. As for the Imamiyyah, the mainstay for them in the science of knowledge is the authenticity of the isnad. As for corroboration by evidence, it is rare for them; and when the narration is devoid of an isnad, it is not worthy of attention.

^[4]  Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar, 2/131-132. As for what Muhsini said after that: In Sahih ‘Ali ibn al Hakam on the authority of Abu Jamilah from Abu Jafar ‘alayh al Salam, “The daughters of the prophets ‘alayhim al Salam do not menstruate, rather menstruation is a punishment and the first to menstruate was Sarah.” I say: Menstruation is a natural punishment and not a penalty for what Sarah did to Hajar. I think the affliction is from Abu Jamilah, the first narrator. (Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar, 2/136.) It does not mean that he authenticates the narration as ‘Ammar al Mahdawi and Haydar Hubb Allah thought, so they included this narration among the narrations considered authentic by Muhammad Asif Muhsini based on Muhsini’s statement, “Sahih ‘Ali ibn al Hakam,” thinking that he had ruled the narration to be authentic. Haydar Hubb Allah commented on Muhsini’s statement saying, “I did not understand why Sheikh Muhsini included Abu Jamilah’s narration in the Sahih, even though Abu Jamilah, who is al Mufaddal ibn Salih, was weakened by al Najashi.” (Al Mu’tabar min Bihar al Anwar, 2/10, footnote 4.) The truth is that Muhsini only authenticated the isnad to ‘Ali ibn al Hakam, based on his accusation of Abu Jamilah, who is al Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar—who is known to be weak—that the affliction is from him and therefore Muhsini did not include this narration in Mujam al Ahadith al Mu’tabarah.

^[5]  Hawamish Naqdiyyah, pg. 44.

^[6]  A group of Imami scholars have authenticated this narration including al Majlisi in Mir’at al ‘Uqul, 13/249 and Miladh al Akhyar, 7/137, Yusuf al Bahrani in al Hada’iq al Nadirah, 3/297, Khomeini in Kitab al Taharah, 1/283; al Bahbudi in Sahih al Kafi, 1/220, and Muhammad Asif Muhsini in Mujam al Ahadith al Mu’tabarah, 4/265.

^[7]  Al Kafi, 3/105; Tahdhib al Ahkam, 1/160.

^[8]  Al Majlisi authenticated this narration in Mir’at al ‘Uqul, 16/340; Miladh al Akhyar, 7/137, Yusuf al Bahrani in al Hada’iq al Nadirah, 3/296, Khomeini in Kitab al Taharah, 1/283, and Muhammad Asif Muhsini in Mujam al Ahadith al Mu’tabarah, 4/277.

^[9]  Al Kafi, 4/136; Tahdhib al Ahkam, 4/310. Ibn Babawayh al Qummi narrates this narration in Man La Yahduruhu al Faqih, 2/145 from ‘Ali ibn Mahzayar: however, Fatimah’s name is deleted from the narration.

^[10]  Muhammad ‘Abbas Dahini considered the issue of denying menstruation for Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha as extremism. See his introductory article on the twenty-third issue of the magazine Contemporary Texts: http://hobbollah.com/motabeat/مجلة-نص-معاصرة-في-عددها-الثالث-وا/.

^[11]  Surah al Hadid: 19.

^[12]  Surah al Baqarah: 143.

^[13]  Al Zahra’ al Qudwah, pg. 183-184.

^[14]  Al Majlisi al Ab authenticated this narration in Rawdat al Muttaqin, 13/215, al Majlisi al Ibn in Mir’at al ‘Uqul, 25/234; al Qariyaghandi in al Buda’ah al Mizjah, 2/422, and Muhammad Asif Muhsini in Mujam al Ahadith al Mu’tabarah, 2/479.

^[15]  Al Kafi, 8/146.

^[16]  Al Barqi: Al Mahasin, 1/164.

^[17]  Al Barqi: al Mahasin, 1/164.

^[18]  Al Khisal, pg. 636.

^[19]  Man La Yahduruhu al Faqih, 4/411.

^[20]  Al Barqi: Al Mahasin, 1/163-164.

^[21]  Ma’sat al Zahra’, 2/46; al Hujum ‘ala Bayt Fatimah, pg. 275.

^[22]  Al Amali, pg. 197, Hadith: 2; Ibn Shahrashub: Manaqib Al Abi Talib, 2/52, without isnad.

^[23]  Hiwar ma’a Fadl Allah, pg. 277.

^[24]  He is al Jamurani without a doubt. His full name was mentioned in another narration in al Khisal by Ibn Babawayh, pg. 5, narration 12, where the narration of his student al Ash’ari about him was repeated and his narration from his Sheikh al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah. This is what ‘Ali Akbar Ghifari stated, as he commented in the margin of the narration saying, “He is Muhammad ibn Ahmed Abu ‘Abdullah al Razi.” And Muhammad Amin al Kazimi said in his book Hidayat al Muhaddithin ila Tariq al Muhammadin, pg. 289, “Abu ‘Abdullah: He is shared by a group of them, including al Thiqah and others… Muhammad ibn Ahmed al Jamurani al Razi, and he is known for the narration from Ahmed ibn Abi ‘Abdullah and the narration of Muhammad ibn Ahmed ibn Yahya.”

^[25]  Miladh al Akhyar, 14/372.

^[26]  He is referring to ‘Abdul Nabi al Jaza’iri, the author of Hawi al Aqwal fi ‘Ilm al Rijal.

^[27]  Al Du’afa’ min Rijal al Hadith, 3/119.

^[28]  Al Jawahiri: Al Mufid min Mujam al Rijal, pg. 487, 496. He condensed al Khu’i’s views of al Rijal.

^[29]  Tanqih al Maqal, 1/132. Al Mamaqani said concerning him, “Weak or unknown.”

^[30]  Istiqsa’ al I’tibar fi Sharh al Istibsar, 2/55.

^[31]  Kashf al Asrar fi Sharh al Istibsar, 3/82.

^[32]  Usas al Qada’ wa al Shahadah, pg. 338.

^[33]  Al Qada’ ‘ala al Fiqh al Islami, pg. 654.

^[34]  Mustadrakat ‘Ilm Rijal al Hadith, 6/386, 7/165.

^[35]  Qamus al Rijal, 9/53.

^[36]  See our critique of the narration of Amali Ibn Babawayh from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

^[37]  Rawdat al Muttaqin fi Sharh Man La Yahduruhu al Faqih, 6/196.

^[38]  It appears as such. The correct version is: ghayr.

^[39]  Al Khawaju’i: Al Rasa’il al Fiqhiyyah, 1/366-367.

^[40]  It is stated in Rijal al Sheikh al Tusi, pg. 289: Muhammad ibn ‘Ubaidah al Fazari; and this is correct. As for what al Khu’i established by mentioning ‘Utbah instead of ‘Ubaidah, it is a mistake on his part, as Muhammad Baqir al Abtahi indicated in his book Mujam Ruwat al Hadith wa Thiqatuhu, 6/3073, and we only mentioned what al Khu’i mentioned as a precaution.

^[41]  Al Mufid min Mujam Rijal al Hadith, pg. 549; Rijal al Tusi, pg. 219. Al Namazi mentioned both Muhammad ibn ‘Utbah al ‘Ijli and Muhammad ibn ‘Utbah al Kindi. Both of them have not been mentioned in Mawsu’at al Shia as appears in Mustadrakat ‘Ilm Rijal al Hadith, 7/200-201, so they are also unknown.

^[42]  Based on the above, it can be said that all Muhammad ibn ‘Utbahs are unknown except Muhammad ibn Abi Hudhayfah ibn ‘Utbah ibn Rabi’ah al Qurashi, whom Sheikh al Tusi listed in his book al Rijal, pg. 82, Number: 821, among the companions of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He indicated that he was his agent in Egypt. It is not possible that he is the one mentioned in the isnad, as this is among the companions of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and is not from the same generation as Imam al Sadiq, as is required in this isnad under discussion, nor even close to his generation. (Al Mufid min Mujam al Rijal, pg. 485.)

^[43]  There are other possibilities, but they are far-fetched, including that the narrator from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is Muhammad ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Bakr al Judh’ani, whom al Tusi included in his al Rijal, pg. 288, as one of the companions of Imam al Sadiq. It is difficult for him to narrate from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. However, for the sake of benefit, we say Muhammad ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Bakr al Judh’ani is unknown, according to al Khu’i’s principles, as stated in al Mufid min Mujam Rijal al Hadith, pg. 541. Al Mamaqani said in Tanqih al Maqal, 1/139: unknown. Even if it is said that the narrator is Muhammad ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Bakr al Siddiq—although this is far-fetched—the answer is: Muhammad narrated from his father ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Bakr. Al Mamaqani said about ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Bakr, “The son is on his father’s secret.” (Tanqih al Maqal, 1/83). And he is unknown according to al Sayed al Khu’i’s principles, as stated in al Mufid min Mujam Rijal al Hadith, pg. 307.

^[44]  Al Mufid min Mujam Rijal al Hadith, pg. 452.

^[45]  Tanqih al Maqal, 1/84.

^[46]  Mustadrakat ‘Ilm Rijal al Hadith, 4/411.

^[47]  Rasa’il al Muhaqqiq al Karki, 2/228.

^[48]  Like the scholar al Hilli in al Khulasah, pg. 271, and Ibn Dawood in his al Rijal, pg. 177. See Jawwad al Qayyumi’s criticism of al Hilli in the footnote on the same page for him considering Muhammad ibn ‘Abdur Rahman reliable. He said, “The narrations in his blame are numerous.” Among those who praised him is al Majlisi in his al Rijal, pg. 305.

^[49]  Muntaha al Maqal fi Ahwal al Rijal, 6/90.

^[50]  Bahjat al Amal fi Sharh Zubdat al Maqal, 6/467.

^[51]  Mujam Rijal al Hadith, 17/230.

^[52]  Itqan al Maqal, pg. 353.

^[53]  Tanqih al Maqal, 1/139.

^[54]  Mulakhkhas al Maqal, 3/297.

^[55]  Hawi al Aqwal, 4/270.

^[56]  ‘Uddat al Rijal, 2/61.

^[57]  Manhaj al Maqal fi ‘Ilm al Rijal, pg. 302.

^[58]  Du’afa’ al Ruwat, pg. 463.

^[59]  Tanqih al Maqal, 1/83.

^[60]  Al Mufid min Mujam Rijal al Hadith, pg. 308.

^[61]  A’yan al Shia, 2/218. Muhsin al Amin said, “Ibn Abi Layla is a common name between a group of people, none of them have any share of reliability.”

^[62]  Asif Muhsini said in his commentary on part 44 of Bihar al Anwar in chapter 22, “There is nothing in this chapter that has a valid isnad except what is mentioned under number 19.” And the narration that we are discussing bears number 17 in chapter 22. (Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar, 2/150.)

^[63]  Hawamish Naqdiyyah, pg. 155.

^[64]  Muhaj al Da’wat, pg. 257.

^[65]  Kamil al Ziyarat, pg. 377.

^[66]  Misbah al Mutahajjid, pg. 729-730.

^[67]  Misbah al Mutahajjid, pg. 784.

^[68]  Al Mashhadi: Al Mazar, pg. 419.

^[69]  Surah al Mujadilah: 7.

^[70]  Al Kafi, 8/179. Al Majlisi said about the sanad, “Reliable from the external.” (Mir’at al ‘Uqul, 26/68.)

^[71]  Bihar al Anwar, 45/328.

^[72]  A research published in the journal Nusus, issues 2 and 33, Autumn and Winter 2014, 1435 AH, entitled: The ‘Ashura’ Revolution, a Study of Political and Social Factors, pg. 120, comment on footnote 9.

^[73]  Bihar al Anwar, 45/53.

^[74]  We sent the question to the office of Marja’ Muhammad Fadil al Lankarani through the questions section on his official website and we received his answer via email. The answer is numbered 66792.

^[75]  We sent the question to the office of Marja’ Nasir Makarim Shirazi through the questions section on his official website, and we received his answer via email.

^[76]  We sent the question to Ahmed al Mahdi’s website through the questions section on his official website and we received his answer via email.

^[77]  Fasl al Khitab, pg. 235 (lithographic edition), 1/619 (Dar al Dirasat al Fikriyyah print), pg. 555 (Dar al Intishar al ‘Arabi print).

^[78]  Fasl al Khitab, pg. 245-246 (lithographic edition), 1/648 (Dar al Dirasat al Fikriyyah print), pg. 573, Hadith: 46, (Dar al Intishar al ‘Arabi print).

^[79]  Those who cited this narration tried to amend the phrase changed Your book from its apparent meaning by applying it to the distortion of meaning as Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili did in his book Mukhtasar Mufid, 5/41. Al Nuri refuted this claim in his book Fasl al Khitab, where he said in response to those who claimed that what is meant by “distortion” in the narrations is distortion of meaning, “We did not find distortion of meaning that was done by the Khalifas—to whom distortion was attributed—in those narrations, in one or more verses and their interpretation of them, other than what Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala intended from them. If was found then it was extremely rare. Rather, the distortion of meaning and interpretation by opinion and whims became widespread in the later generations of interpreters, who were contemporaries of the Imams ‘alayhim al Salam such as Qatadah, al Dahhak, al Kalbi, and Muqatil, or who came after them such as al Balkhi, al Qadi, al Zamakhshari, al Razi, and their like. As for that which proceeded from the Khalifas was practical opposition to the Qur’an, due to personal motives and satanic skepticism. And this is not distortion [of meaning]. What we mentioned is clarified by what appears in the narrations of Munashadah (Adjurations) and others of their acknowledgement of what the Commander of the Faithful ‘alayh al Salam counted as one of his virtues and clear signs, even if they do not act upon its implications.” (Fasl al Khitab, 249 (lithographic edition), 1/657 (Dar al Dirasat al Fikriyyah print), pg. 581.)

^[80]  Mashra’at Bihar al Anwar, 2/472; Bihar al Anwar, 83/223, chapter 44, chapter on sajdat al shukr, Hadith: 44.

^[81]  We have previously quoted Makarim Shirazi’s answer regarding the definition of the son of Your Prophet. He said at the end of his answer, “But the narration is mursal.” Then he was asked again about the meaning of his determining the narration as mursal. The text of the question directed to him is, “What we need to clarify to fully understand your Eminence’s answer so that the benefit is complete is your saying at the end of the answer, ‘but the narration is mursal.’ Do you mean that the narration of Ibn Tawus referred to in the question is mursal?” Makarim Shirazi answered by saying, “The answer: Yes.”

^[82]  Ma’sat al Zahra’, 2/70; al Hujum ‘ala Bayt Fatimah, pg. 269; Hiwar ma’a Fadl Allah Hawl al Zahra’, pg. 34.

^[83]  Dala’il al Imamah, pg. 400; Nawadir al Mu’jizat, pg. 191, with same isnad; Ithbat al Wasiyyah, pg. 211, without isnad.

^[84]  This is what Jafar Murtada Al ‘Amili acknowledged when he said after mentioning this narration, “This narration, even if it is not explicit in the details of what happened, it also expresses that she radiya Llahu ‘anha personally was subjected to gross injustice.” (Ma’sat al Zahra’, 2/70.)

^[85]  Appears such in al Mufid min Mujam al Rijal, pg. 586; Bassam Murtada: Zubdat al Maqal, 2/409.

^[86]  Dala’il al Imamah, manuscript preserved at Maktabat al Mar’ashi al Najafi, Number: 2974. See image 1 below for a screenshot of the text. As for the second copy preserved in al Maktabah al Ridwiyyah, we did not find it, but Mu’assasat al Ba’thah relied on this copy as well as the Mar’ashi copy and did not indicate that there was a difference in the text between the two handwritten copies, because the method of investigation that they followed was to point out the differences between the copies unless they were not important; and there is no doubt that the occurrence of a difference in the isnad is an important matter. As long as they did not point out that, it appears that the two copies correspond.

^[87]  See the following editions of Dala’il al Imamah: the edition published by the al Haydariyyah Press in Najaf in 1949 CE, pg. 212, the second edition by the al A’lami Foundation in 1988 CE, pg. 207, and the first edition by Mu’assasat al Ba’thah, edited by the Department of Islamic Studies in Qom in 1413 AH, pg. 400.

^[88]  Nawadir al Mu’jizat manuscript preserved in al Maktabah al Ridwiyyah, Number: 33321, pg. 76. See image 2 below for a screenshot of the text. Nawadir al Mu’jizat manuscript preserved in Maktabat Chahal Sittun in Tehran, Number: 96, Q: 71.  See image 3 below for a screenshot of the text. Nawadir al Mu’jizat manuscript preserved in al Maktabah al Ridwiyyah, Number: 1923, Q: 47, ba; Q: 48, Alif. See image 4 and 5 below for a screenshot of the text. In addition to these, there are the four manuscript copies that Bassam al Asadi relied on in the edition of Maktabat al ‘Allamah al Majlisi of Nawadir al Mu’jizat and he did not indicate that there was a difference in the manuscript copies.

^[89]  See the following editions of al Nawadir: Manshurat Kamal al Mulk edition, pg. 236, Maktabat al ‘Allamah al Majlisi edition, pg. 360, Mu’assasat al Imam al Mahdi edition, pg. 183.

^[90]  Including Hashim al Bahrani in Madinat al Ma’ajiz, 7/325, Lajnat al Hadith fi Ma’had Baqir al ‘Ulum in Mawsu’at Shuhada’ al Ma’sumin, 1/250, and Hashim al Hashimi in Hiwar ma’a Fadl Allah Hawl al Zahra’, pg. 34.

IMAGE 1

 

IMAGE 2

 

IMAGE 3

 

IMAGE 4

 

IMAGE 5